There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

You did not read what i wrote on don't get confused part. That description is for the attainments on reverse mode. If you try to understand this part thru words, not going to go anywhere.

What do you mean by attainments on reverse mode? not a term i am familiar with.

Anyway, base on your understanding, how would you phrase your question adding to this

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

In case you are reading 3rd & 4th question in term of 2 dimensional perspective; i read it differently, the 3 question is asking within comprehensible dimensions concept, the 4 th cover the incomprehensible dimemsions concept. I am really really really looking forward to a question that goes beyond this.

I am not sure what question you are inquiring about, i am not familiar with 2 dimensional perspective terminology. The questions are not answerable because existence of the Tathagata can not be pinned as a reality much like that chair example i pointed out for you.

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

Postulating existence of the Tathagata even in the present life would be to postulate of things outside of All, therefore these questions do not apply.

Last edited by rightviewftw on Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is not my theory - this is how Commentary explains it. And it makes sense, sinse if nibbana were "something", there would be 7th kind of contact, 7th type of feeling, and 7th type of consiousness. But there are none.

Does it? From what VBB quotes from the Commentary it seems it is what is usually described by phala samāpatti (but not the first entering into phala, but entering attainment again later in life, since ariya can enter phala many times):

Mp identifies this with the concentration of fruition attainment (phalasamāpattisamādhi). This attainment is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path, but a special meditative state accessible only to those who have already attained one of the four paths and its subsequent fruition. The attainment, as shown in this sutta, does not take any of the mundane, conditioned meditation objects as its support; its support is the unconditioned nibbāna, experienced directly and immediately. The commentaries hold that this attainment is graded as fourfold according to the four stages of realization (from stream-entry to arahantship).

Actually, I don't understand, where Bhikkhu Bodhi had taken the phrase that it "is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path". I don't see it in Commentary and Sub-Comm. It is just "phalasamāpatti samādhi".

This is not my theory - this is how Commentary explains it. And it makes sense, sinse if nibbana were "something", there would be 7th kind of contact, 7th type of feeling, and 7th type of consiousness. But there are none.

Does it? From what VBB quotes from the Commentary it seems it is what is usually described by phala samāpatti (but not the first entering into phala, but entering attainment again later in life, since ariya can enter phala many times):

Mp identifies this with the concentration of fruition attainment (phalasamāpattisamādhi). This attainment is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path, but a special meditative state accessible only to those who have already attained one of the four paths and its subsequent fruition. The attainment, as shown in this sutta, does not take any of the mundane, conditioned meditation objects as its support; its support is the unconditioned nibbāna, experienced directly and immediately. The commentaries hold that this attainment is graded as fourfold according to the four stages of realization (from stream-entry to arahantship).

Actually, I don't understand, where Bhikkhu Bodhi had taken the phrase that it "is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path". I don't see it in Commentary and Sub-Comm. It is just "phalasamāpatti samādhi".

He probably means that the yogi experiences fruition as he emerges from the cessation attainment of the eightfold path. The change in him as a result of the attainment is thus fruition and the meditative state is one thing and fruition is another. A proposition which some people would have disagreed with.

vinnana anidassanam is nibbana obviously you have been refuted on this before;viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31737
but here is even more fresh refutation quotes for you, quoting Thanissaro;

Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12.64:

"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35.23 notes, the word "all" in the Buddha's teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud I.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud VIII.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself. This argument, however, contains a flaw: If nibbana is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

In MN 49, the All is treated the same as in MN 1 and everywhere else. It is not identified with.

Having directly known earth as earth, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on earth, I did not identify with earth, I did not identify regarding earth, I did not identify as earth, I did not identify ‘earth is mine’, I did not enjoy earth.

So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior.

Evampi kho ahaṃ, brahme, neva te samasamo abhiññāya, kuto nīceyyaṃ?

Rather, I know more than you.

Atha kho ahameva tayā bhiyyo.

Having directly known water …

Āpaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

fire …

tejaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

air …

vāyaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

creatures …

bhūte kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

gods …

deve kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

the Creator …

pajāpatiṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

Brahmā …

brahmaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

the gods of streaming radiance …

ābhassare kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

the gods replete with glory …

subhakiṇhe kho ahaṃ, brahme …

… pe …

the gods of abundant fruit …

vehapphale kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

the Overlord …

abhibhuṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …

Having directly known all as all, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on all, I did not identify with all, I did not identify regarding all, I did not identify as all, I did not identify ‘all is mine’, I did not enjoy all.

In Buddhism, there can be no consciousness without nama-rupa. MN 49 and DN 11 are spoken to Brahmans in their language. These suttas are unrelated to Buddhism but merely conversations with Brahma gods & their followers. End of story

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands : the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all .

OMG! The materialism! There is no consciousness without an object, per MN 38 and SN 22.53.

Consciousness "landing" is a synonym for clinging; when consciousness gets "stuck" on an object via craving (explained in SN 22.53), such as:

Imo It is not really ambiguous, is explained very well and is quite important. either way it is not crucial for my interpretation as i have explained it in so many ways using many other discources. The term just happens to fit nicely on a long list of Sutta which illustrate my point.

Last edited by rightviewftw on Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is not really ambiguous, is explained very well and is quite important. either way it is not crucial for my interpretation as i have explained it in so many ways using many other discources. The term just happens to fit nicely on a long list of Sutta which illustrate my point.

The actual long list refutes your points. My impression is this is more procrastination, namely, obsession with what cannot be practised. Its ironic to read page after page of sense objects, which are obsession and writings about a consciousness without a sense object.

In real Dhamma, Nibbana is defined as the destruction of craving; thus sincere practitioners interested in Nibbana immediately embark on the practise of abandoning craving.

Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is not really ambiguous, is explained very well and is quite important. either way it is not crucial for my interpretation as i have explained it in so many ways using many other discources. The term just happens to fit nicely on a long list of Sutta which illustrate my point.

There is no long list. The actual long list refutes your points. My impression is this is more procrastination, namely, obsession with what cannot be practised. Its ironic to read page after page of sense objects, which are obsession and writings about a consciousness without a sense object.

refute it then, let's see it
you are just jumping in at the end of the discussion and making unsubstantiated claims.